GBurns

How does she get past service if there was no W-2 ?

Are we sure what was meant by "leased employees" ? Sometimes the term is used in reference to employees purportedly falling under a PEO arrangement. Sometimes the employees are truly leased. Doesn't it make a difference ?

In the cases that I have seen reported and the few that I have actually been involved with, there was no rev proc or any official source other than the IRC and Treas Regs. Both allow deductions for a plan. If a plan is disqualified, it means that a plan does not exist. If a plan or any other item does exist then logically there can be no deduction for it. This needs no cites. As to whether a disallowance or disqualification is absolute, total or partial etc, is a facts and circumstances issue, and subject to negotiation with the examiing agent.

It all depends. On the wording, I mean. The wording should be that the company will reimburse eligible expenses (or other specific item) up to a maximum of $500 per plan year. The company would pay nothing if there are no eligible expenses.

If you send the RFP to those like Fidelity etc, Aren't you going to be restricted to using their funds only? Or do they have an ASO type service also ?

Just do a Google search on the term "state minimum wage" and you will get results like : http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

BruceM Has there ever been an issue on which the average person has ever made their choice for that which was best for them in the long term (big picture) rather than choosing based on "low-info", sound bites, advertising hype and alleged trend reports ? That's how we got into this mess.

I think that it is the ER who signs the vendor's ISA.

Can you check that PLR#, there seems to be a digit missing. I am curious to see how Kaiser can have a deferred comp agreement with an unrelated corporate entity to defer something that is not wages or compensation earnings and which are being paid to someone who has no employment arrangement. I would think that if any company was free to have its debtor clients defer its invoices, many would be taking advantage of this (if it was advantageous in their particular case).

I was not referring to the Obama campaign in particular, I was referring to the General Election. On November 4, we will be having a General Election. The election of a new President is only 1 of the many items on the ballot. Of great importance is the election of many Members of Congress. The attaining of a veto proof majoritycould be as significant as the party affiliation of whomever is elected President. My comment was general in nature and directed at the overall election, which according to many pollsters favors the members of the Democratic Party. They might very well find a way to reverse the polls. While you did not attribute anything to the Obama campaign I must point out that I have not heard of Obama or his campaign suggesting "an abrupt withdrawal". I also thought that victory was already accomplished. The stated objective of the War for Iraqi Freedom was the overthrow of the Saddam regime at that was already declared "Mission Accomplished". I do not have at hand the name of the subsequent operations but What we are currently doing is reconstruction which has no victory just completion.

I think that it was Stephanie Miller (of Air America, I think) who said "Democrats usually find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory".

The 17.5 hrs has to do with insurance carrier requirements not pre-tax requirements. Separate health insurance coverage would most likely be dictated by the insurance carrier, so a separate health plan would be a good idea. By the way, a H&W plan is not the same as the health insurance plan(coverage). Health insurance coverage is just one of the benefits provided under a Health & Welfare Plan. You probably will have to amend the H&W Plan Document to allow a health plan(coverage) for the part-timers. Discrimination rules and testing depends on what you decide to do. PT is a reasonable classification. If there will be a cafeteria plan attached then those discrimination rules will also apply.

That raises concerns : Which of the bailouts ? One of the US various bailouts or one the many foreign country bailouts or all together ? When will the effects be felt and be verifiable ? How will we know whether it was attributable to one of the bailouts and not to other action by FDIC or Fed Reserve rate cut etc ?

I cannot think of any other poster in over 5 years who so consistently misreads, misquotes and misunderstands responses and even their own posited scenarios. It is pointless responding to you, maybe someone else will spend the time.

The idea seems to have some merit, but iit has some basic problems. Since you are now doing it internally for a firm, it means that the need exists and clients are being billed for it. But, the clients had no choice and probably are not aware that it has been bundled into their charges. They probably would not understand the value nor see the need. So your services might mainly be sold to the auditing firms. That seems to limit you to auditing firms that are not currently doing this internally already or are currently outsourcing. Unless you can show the value to those auditors who are not using such services, your market might be limited. Of course, there is the market of plans who have had problems to whom this service could have helped, but that should be a marketing challenge. But you never can pre-judge whether or not offering such a service would be successful. You have to test. It might be cheaper for these firms to outsource and you will never know unless you ask. Some others might not have even thought that such services were available. Some might be using a more expensive service provider. Some might be not satisfied with their current provider. You never know until you try. I know a guy who made very good money for years providing return preparation, accounting revisions and back-office support to a few law firms that provided IRS representation to businesses. He was not a CPA but was excellent at bookkeeping and taxes. His forte was being able to go beyond filling in the blanks on a data entry screen. Since their clients saved more money and the lawyers got additinal approaches etc to use, they were willing to replace some internal work and share the additional profit. This is not too dissimilar to what you are proposing. That worked, there is no reason why yours should not.

It does not merit cites or cases, all you need is some simple logic. What happens if an employee who is not authorized to sign a check, draws and signs a check to a vendor, and that vendor then deposits that check ? What happens if the CEO tells the accounts payable clerk to pay his house mortgage every month and record it as being rental of office space by the company ? What happens if the CEO signs an agreement to sell the company without the Board knowing ? What happens if the CEO decides to not bother to have Board meetings or a Board because he is the major shareholder? Persons can only enter into agreements/contracts that they are entitled or authorized to. Without such entitlement or authorization the agreement/contract is null and void, except where there is fraud or intent to defraud etc, then you have additional issues. A CEO or any other executive and the Board can only act as the by-laws and state corporation laws etc authorize them to do. That is the basic reason behind articles of incorporation and the company by-laws. Why do you think that they exist ? Why do you think that Minutes etc have to be kept for Board meetings ?

Do a Google search on the term "403(b)(7) Group Custodial" and you should get an idea of how prevalent such an agreement is.

I am not up to date on current practices, so this is my recollection circa 2000. Almost every 403(b) product that i saw was a Group Annuity and I recall that some of the major 403(b)(7) mutual funds were a sort of pooled or group account, especially if there was an employer contribution. I recall those mutual funds because of how the sales charge (and 12b-1 fees etc) was structured based on investment volume. In the employer documentation there was an employer agreement of some sort, an agreement regarding payroll deductions etc, an Adoption agreement and a Hold Harmless. I think that the employer agreement included such language as to make it a custodial agreement. In any case, since they were group products, the employer would have had to be the account/policy holder and therefore a party to the custodial agreement.

Cute, the logo I mean.

Is there a relationship? Retirement plans have their funds in all sorts of investments. These investments are subject to changes in values based on how the investments respond to the various markets and their changes. The bailouts are not directed at or to any market. As far as I see, the bailout/bailouts are not directed at anything directly related to these investments in general,, except for the investments held in Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and AIG stock. These should be a minimal percentage anyhow. So while I see the downturn affecting retirement plans, I see no relationship with the bailout.

I have a freeze on hiring and it is fee sharing only but would reconsider for someone with a number of CEO contacts at large companies. I have no full--time staff but I have a few professonals on retainer who work as needed but almost everyone else get paid for referrals that become clients (sales). None would have noticed unless idly nit-picking. I do not know how prevalent or legal it is, but I have seen pay stubs from 401(k) participants who reduced elective deferrals to the minimum for employer matching and used the difference in reduction (plus a little extra) as loan repayment. Thus the impact was negligible especially if earnings fluctuate with OT or commissions etc. I do not know how much impact a $20,000 loan would have in that scenario or this.

Be careful. As I pointed out Florida which uses standard wording refers to "persons". Many solo practitioners and sole proprietors use dbas. These most likely are not able to participate even if they use their SS but are dba. The operating entity must be the same as that receiving payment and in Florida must be a person. A dba can never be a person even if SS# is used.

There was no arrangement before. It was just an improper practice. It is not a matter of continuing, it is a matter of starting an actual plan. It does not matter what you call something as much as it matters what that thing is. You cannot call a payment an expense reimbursement just because you feel like, it has to be eligible etc. I do not know how you came to your conclusion regarding 1.105(a). In any case it is 1.105-11 that is fully applicable. It is in fact titled "Self-Insured medical reimbursement plan" which is what we are discussing here. Regarding tasconline.com : Read the documents cited in paragraph 2 and read paragraph 3 regarding the spousal and spouse/employee requirements. There also requirements for adequate compensation etc. In other words, not every sole prop will qualify and not everyone will be able to meet the various requirements. Even then because of limitations etc it might not be worthwhile. The by-laws are what the company has to operate under. If the signer of a document is not authorized to sign that document, it is either a failure to operate, null and void, or in some cases involving business transactions it could be fraud. It is not the plan document signing that is the issue. It is the Board Resolution. *********************** Will someone else chip in, Please.

You do not implement a 105 document, you implement a 105 plan as per its documents. You cannot recharacterize anything, it either is or is not. Insurance functions are irrelevant. See 1.105-11(b)(i) regarding the necessity for a written plan in regard to a medical reimbursement plan. What purpose could it possibly serve in a sole proprietorship ? It seems pointless to have this discussion if you are not sure what the by-laws say, what the initial resolution covers or what the plan document for the benefit plan says. These are things that have to be known first.

Adopted but nothing in writing means nothing was adopted. Which 105 document ackowledges the "plan" ? Implementing a "new" 105 plan would not require Board approval if such a plan was covered in the governing employee benefit plan or if the initial Board Resolution was broad enough to cover additional items or changes. If the CEO says that signing is not within his powers, How can you question his executive decision unless you can show where he is wrong according to the by-laws? The by-laws dictate his authority subject to his decision as to what to defer to the Board. By the way, the sample document that you posted does not make it as anything. The title says "Resolution" which suggests a Board Resolution, but a CEO cannot sign a Board Resolution. Your title is also questionable. Is there a Plan Document etc for this 'Health Reimbursement Arrangement"?